Forum:Smoke Filled Rooms
The update on Norman Thomas got me to thinking that we haven't resolved categorizations of various people on Government and/or Party payrolls. We have "Cabinet Positions" but "Assistant Secretary of War" like Thomas and FDR in the later SV books don't have a place there. Likewise, minor political types on government payrolls like Charlie Sullivan as speechwriter or Flora Blackford's secretary Bertha (Southern Victory) in Philadelphia don't have a category. These have a more personal relationship with the politician and so shouldn't be in Category:Government Employees. Steele's "Pain Trust" would probably also fit in whatever we call it. Now we also have more political party types like Herman Bruck and Floral before she was elected. These two we classified as Category:Politicians which is a loose fit and then there is the discussion in Talk:Albert Bauer that was never resolved. This group could also cover people like Angelina and Maria Tresca who were secretaries in the Lower East Side Socialist offices. For the Assistant Sec. types "Political Appointees" might do while we had discussed "Political Operatives" and "Political Organizers" in the Bauer talk page. That wouldn't cover the Tresca sisters though. "Political Party Employees" might do for them if we come up with separate categories for the two types especially since Bauer doesn't seem to have been on the payroll although he probably would have gotten expenses covered if they were for "Party Business". Oh and I also just remembered Caleb Briggs and Robert Quinn on the Freedom Party side where Briggs was unpaid like Bauer and Quinn on the payroll like Bruck. Any ideas or suggestions? ML4E (talk) 18:43, June 13, 2015 (UTC) :I notice Wikipedia has the broad catch-all Category:Political professionals. Then there are sub-cats like, consultants, staffers, writers, etc. Maybe that's a model to adopt? TR (talk) 17:38, June 14, 2015 (UTC) :People who actually work in the US government at the sub-Cabinet level are "civilian employees on the executive schedule." That's a dreadful name for a category, and could be anachronistic: I don't know how far back the executive schedule goes, but I'm willing to bet we've got assistant secretaries and undersecretaries who served before it was adopted. I had initially thought of "civil servants," but that tends to be more closely associated with non-political positions. That line is often blurred in the executive departments, but one useful litmus test might be, Who would expect to be out of a job if the opposition party wins the next presidential election, and who knows their job is safe? ::Yes, "civil servants" was an alternative name I had suggested for what eventually became "Government Employees". The intention for that was the professional, for lack of a better word, government officials. These would be the ones not out of a job if the opposition party wins and tends to go higher up the org. chart in the British and Canadian parliamentary system than in the US executive one. :What about something like "Executive Officials (Governmental)," that "Governmental" to ensure we don't get confused and fill it with high-ranking corporate managers or, hell, the second-in-command of a warship or something? That still doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, but on the other hand it's broad enough to handle officials from many different countries. Hell, it can even hold all those accountants and such that Marcus Scaurus oversaw, or for that matter, Scaurus himself. And the category we already have for Cabinet-level officials can be a sub-cat. ::The apolitical (or even the politically biased) book-keeper types probably would fit the "Government Employees" cat better but yes the higher up ones would go into this category. I was looking for a name for those between that and the "Cabinet Members". "Executive Officials (Governmental)" might do. ML4E (talk) 21:33, June 15, 2015 (UTC) :::I may have been overreaching with those bookkeepers. The apparatus of government in Videssos would barely even count as nascent by modern standards. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:21, June 16, 2015 (UTC) :To TR's suggestion, a catch-all category will certainly be necessary for political party operatives, since there are so many whose duties we don't have enough information to pigeon-hole. The problem with the specific catch-all you suggest is that having "professional" in the name excludes the unpaid operatives, volunteers, and part-timers ML4E has identified (and however many he hasn't). I think "Political Operatives" or maybe "Political Campaigners" or " . . . Campaign Staff" are all safer options. ::Yes, I subsequently thought of the various political types Peggy Druce came across in the later parts of tWtPE. There would be the paid operatives like the one that kept calling her to take her dog and pony show on the road and then the local party chairmen and women who would be volunteers. You also have Abigail Kawananakoa, who we have categorized in "Politicians" and was the "Republican national committeewoman for Hawaii" in OTL. ML4E (talk) 21:33, June 15, 2015 (UTC) :::Hmm, politician is such a vague term. If it just means someone who takes part in politics, it would cover national committee members like Princess Abigail. (And by the way, I'm just now becoming bemused at the notion of someone who used a royal title being so devoted to a party whose entire name is "Republican.") But the word more commonly has a connotation of someone who holds or seeks to hold an office in government. Since committeewoman was the only office Abigail ever held or sought, she's an ambiguous case. But a committee member isn't really part of a campaign staff, either. They raise money and disburse it to campaign staff for nominees of the party they are aligned with, but do not run campaigns themselves. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:21, June 16, 2015 (UTC) ::We do seem to be using the "Politicians" cat as a catch-all for back room (or Smoke Filled Rooms if you will) operators as well as for candidates. I just checked and we had not done so for "Boss" Tweed. I did want something to catch politicians in the loosest sense such as him. ML4E (talk) 20:15, June 17, 2015 (UTC) :::When I was younger and first started following politics, I sometimes heard the term "politicos" for people like that. It wasn't very widely used back then, and as far as I can tell it's fallen into disuse completely in this decade. It might be one of those things where someone tries to promote the use of a word for a concept that doesn't have one, but the word doesn't catch on. ::::Actually, in T2G Bushell constantly referred to the politicians and their staff as "politicos". Perhaps its a Briticism that some US commentators used but never caught on? ML4E (talk) 19:34, June 19, 2015 (UTC) :::::Could be. Or it could just be that HT liked the word and was trying to help it gain traction. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:32, June 19, 2015 (UTC) :::I have no preference, by the way, on back room versus smoke-filled room. Smoke-filled conjures up some rather antiquated imagery, but I don't mind. I guess in Britain they're known as darkened rooms. At least during the recent campaign I caught some show or other that had Cameron, Miliband, and Clegg each address an audience for thirty minutes. Cameron and Miliband both said they intended to win majorities so they wouldn't have to "go into a dark room" to cut deals with the leaders of minor parties. Clegg then came out and said "They both want majorities so they won't have to meet with me in a dark room. Well if either of them thinks a majority is going to happen, he needs to go lie down in that dark room!" It really was a good line, even though it would be proven wrong a few days later and certainly didn't help him any. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:59, June 18, 2015 (UTC) ::::I was joking around more than anything else. These days in Canada "back room boys" (even it includes women but that isn't alliterative) is more common than "smoked filled rooms" since the anti-smoking regulations have made them pretty much extinct even in hotel rooms. I hadn't heard "dark rooms" myself but there you go, two (or more) counties separated by a common language. ML4E (talk) 19:34, June 19, 2015 (UTC) :And we should keep the executive officials and the political operatives separate. There's plenty of overlap between them, sure, but that's what double-catting is for. Even if an official is a nakedly partisan political appointment--hell, even if they're a nakedly partisan political candidate, as they would be in a parliamentary democracy--using an office in government to advance a specific party's or candidate's prospects for reelection is a serious ethical breach in most civilized countries. From what I could gather in my brief research for the article intro I wrote on the PRC the other day, even the Chinese Communist Party respects certain limits in that area. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:35, June 15, 2015 (UTC) ::Quite right. Poking around the link TR provided, I came across "Legislative staff" which would fit people like Bertha (Southern Victory) and Charlie Sullivan. It may even fit the "Pain Trust" since they didn't seem to have any positions other than Steele's "Aides". In Canada, there are some fairly strict rules about not just parliamentary staff not working election campaigns (they have to take a leave of absence without pay to work on it) but also on using government offices and equipment. However, this applies only during the official four week campaign after the election writ is dropped so they do tend to show up at political events their principle is attending "after hours". If they aren't too blatant about it or expense the taxpayers for travel and meals (like in the recent Senate scandal) then the public and opponents tend to turn a blind eye to it. However, in addition to staff at the legislation, there are staff at the riding office (and I presume district office for US Congress types). I suppose the name "Legislative staff" is broad enough to cover both. Bruck and Tresca seemed to be doing that type of work as well as Party work after Flora was elected. ML4E (talk) 21:33, June 15, 2015 (UTC) :::Roughly similar rules for Congress and all the state legislatures that I'm aware of. There are loopholes, but you can't use the assets of a legislative office for campaigning (you can mail highly self-congratulatory "newsletters" to your constituents in the name of keeping them informed about goings-on in the capital, but you can't actually say "Vote for me!" or endorse someone else, like a colleague in another district or your party's new nominee if you're retiring). Since we don't have formal writs of election, the campaign sort of starts whenever, and congressional staff, who of necessity are constantly keeping abreast of the political climates of their principles' districts, will quietly lay the groundwork for the reelection campaign more or less all the time. They might overreach and compromise themselves, but even if they do, it's a universal practice, so there's nothing to be gained by blowing the whistle on an opponent. But when it becomes necessary to have professional campaign staff working full time on this, they'll take unpaid leaves and draw salaries from their bosses' war chests. ::::We also have such "newsletters" both from MPs and MPPs (Members of Provincial Parliament) as well as city representatives. Informal campaigning does start well before a writ is issued in anticipation and staff do keep their candidate informed. For riding office staff its even an aspect of their non-partisan duties. ML4E (talk) 20:15, June 17, 2015 (UTC) :::::I suppose it's the same for district office staff here. They must need something to do when no constituent comes in and asks for help with applying for a grant or something like that. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:59, June 18, 2015 (UTC) :::Anyway, referring to such people as legislative staff may work well in Britain or Canada, where cabinet ministers are also MPs (I assume by the way that ministers are allowed to hire larger staffs than back-benchers?) But remember, down here we have a strict separation between the legislature and the executive. If you're working for the White House, as Charlie Sullivan was, or for any of the departments that ultimately report to it, you're not a legislative anything. Most federal agencies do have congressional liaison offices, but even then they're working with legislators, not for them. ::::True enough on the term "Legislative", it was just a convenient term. "Political Staff" might be a more generic term for such people. And yes, cabinet ministers are allocated a larger office budget for more staff. They also have call on the particular ministry staff for more non-partisan duties such as development of policies and legislation to carry out the agenda of the government. This is outside the office budget but can't be used for partisan purposes. ML4E (talk) 20:15, June 17, 2015 (UTC) :::::I could be in the minority here, but when I hear the word "political" I think of the process of seeking office and forming governments. Doing the work of that office once you're in government, or more precisely for our purposes providing support to the officeholder, is what I would term governmental. But there's a big difference between the politically motivated hires who, for instance, work on a cabinet minister's staff and the apolitical hires in the ministry's staff. So I guess I've just got us back to where we started. :( :::::Unless--something that perhaps combines the adjectives governmental and political? Maybe working the word policy in there? When I was an undergrad, we sometimes used "policy adviser" to cover these neither-fish-nor-fowl positions, but that's also a very imprecise term. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:59, June 18, 2015 (UTC) :::Herman Bruck . . . I could be wrong but I never got the impression that he worked for Flora. I believe he still held the same job in IatD that he'd held in AF, when his employer was, apparently, the Socialist Party. Not sure exactly what that means; in modern American politics, you are employed by a committee or something affiliated with your party, or else for a candidate's campaign (which is of course partisan), not by your party itself. Obviously employees of the Socialist Party will support that party's candidates, but Bruck did not work for Myron Zuckerman in AF, so he didn't work for Flora in IatD. (Bertha did, of course.) ::::Bruck was clearly employed by the party but he did do constituency work for for Flora. Its just that she wasn't his boss. In Canada, there are two types of employees. In addition to the campaign staff of a candidate, each political party has permanent staff on the payroll for party work outside the election cycle. Certainly the latter will be involved during the campaign but they also work at keeping the party machinery ready between elections and for helping to develop party platforms and dealing with issues that come up. These would tend to be concentrated in Ottawa for the federal parties but in provincial capitals (like Toronto) for the provincial parties. However, especially at the federal level, there usually are regional offices too. In addition to dealing with regional issues that feed back nationally (e.g. Toronto has about 30 ridings out of 306 nationally), they also work with the individual riding associations which are party volunteers. The riding associations are the ones that, at least nominally, choose who their candidate will be in the general election (or by-election if a vacancy occurs). I figured Bruck (and Flora before she was elected) worked at a Socialist Party office for NYC. The focus in the story was for National campaigns but I can see the office also dealing with state and local matters. ML4E (talk) 20:15, June 17, 2015 (UTC) :::::The party office in 191 may well have been what you describe, I'm just not familiar with such things happening today. Modern American parties (the two big ones at least) are hydra-headed beasts. The National Committees are the most important organs (and do most of the work you describe between election cycles, including the work done in regional satellite offices), and of course there are state and local committees as well, plus student and youth wings and miscellaneous others. These are all associated with the parties, but do not collectively or individually form the parties themselves. The people who come closest to "being" the party are the officials elected on its tickets and private citizens who have chosen to affiliate with the party on their voter registration records. It's terribly vague and amorphous compared to parties in countries that use the Westminster system, and the leader of a Canadian party would weep if he or she had to attempt to impose your definition of party discipline on American congressmen. ::::::In Canada, we have Elections Canada, a non-partisan government agency responsible for registering voters and updating election lists plus actually conducting the election so voters are not registered with a party affiliation. However, political parties finance themselves, in part, with membership dues for the rank-and-file or grass-roots members. This had fallen off as party membership has declined with most financing coming from donations these days but its registered members who decide who is the party leader and eventual PM or Premier if the party wins the election. The latest that comes to mind was the recent leadership campaign in Ontario for the Provincial Conservative Party. There was a window to sign up new members who would be eligible to vote for the new leader and the underdog won by out-signing new members. The fees raised enough to pretty much cover the expenses from the 2014 election. The model for the Socialist Party Turtledove may have used was what had happened in Europe in OTL in that time period. With the Republicans and Democrats so well established, you might look at the smaller independent parties such as the Greens or Libertarian Party and they way they try to organize. ML4E (talk) 19:34, June 19, 2015 (UTC) :::::::When I turned eighteen I wanted to register as a Republican (because I was young and foolish) but there was no way to do that on the initial registration form. I had to wait till I was registered and got a confirmation letter, then send in a Change of Registration form on which you could declare party affiliation. (Another option, which I was not aware of at the time, was to go to my polling place on the day of a primary election and declare then and there. Rules for who can vote in a primary election are set by both state law and party bylaws. In my state, you can vote in the primary of a party with which you're affiliated we only hold Republican and Democratic primaries, all others must arrange their own nominating conventions or an unaffiliated voter can choose which primary to vote in, and will be affiliated with that party moving forward--until he or she changes back to unaffiliated, anyway.) I declared for the GOP and was not required to pay dues, though in a very short time I was inundated with junk mail from the RNC begging for donations. :::::::I've since changed my registration info a couple of times, including switching back to Unaffiliated. The last time I did so was quite recently, and I noticed that now there's only one form used for both first time registrations and changes. You can choose your party affiliation then. :::::::And yeah, campaigns will send out workers to do voter registration drives among what they consider to be their core constituencies, and it does pay dividends. :::::::Since the TL-191 Socialist Party was by and large organized by expat European radicals, I'd imagine that it would retain at least some vestiges of the much more tightly-organized European structure, though Republicans who jumped ship along with Lincoln may have had an Americanizing influence along the way. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:32, June 19, 2015 (UTC) :::::Anyway, you're probably right that he worked on behalf of every endorsed Socialist candidate who ran for any office that appeared on a Lower East Side ballot. (I do recall that theirs was the Lower East Side office, not responsible for the entire city.) Since Flora, not Bruck, was the POV, after she got to Congress for the first time we only saw the office when they were working on Flora's behalf. All else being equal, congressional elections are naturally going to take preference when it comes to drawing on the resources of party organizations when compared with elections to the Manhattan Borough Council or whatever, and since Bruck and Flora came up together it also makes sense that he would take a greater personal interest in her needs than in those of some other official for whom his office was responsible. But he still wasn't in her district office, so he wasn't part of her legislative staff. (If he had been, he would have been paid by the Federal government, not whatever organ of the Socialist Party was in charge of payroll.) Turtle Fan (talk) 02:59, June 18, 2015 (UTC) :::I've often wondered why he'd work in the same rather low-level job for thirty years. He was so ambitious in his youth, you'd think he'd have sought greener pastures not long after losing that first nomination contest. If not, then his ambition would have faded, and in politics, and since politics always attracts ambitious youths, unambitious elders are all but guaranteed to be swept aside sooner or later. Maybe Flora intervened on his behalf whenever it looked like that was about to happen? Turtle Fan (talk) 03:21, June 16, 2015 (UTC) ::::Possibly but see above about regional party offices. ML4E (talk) 20:15, June 17, 2015 (UTC) Summary So what I think we need to sub-cat separately is the following: 1) Personal staff of the politician such as Bertha for Flora and maybe Charlie Sullivan for Steele. :We don't have any perfect fits, but I do believe "Government Political Staff" comes closest. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:32, June 19, 2015 (UTC) ::That will do. ML4E (talk) 18:28, June 21, 2015 (UTC) 2) "Policy Advisers" which would cover Steele's "Pain Trust". It might also cover wheeler-dealers such as Boss Tweed. :Tweed ran an urban political machine, yet another kind of beast. Such people are almost universally referred to as "political bosses." (Astute students of American history will understand the term's specific connotations.) Since we also have Richard J. Daley and Jim Curley, we can go ahead and create a Political Bosses category right now, if we are in agreement that it's what we want. ::Would that include "political fixers" like Hiram Defoe from T2G? This would be in addition to his cabinet position. ML4E (talk) 18:28, June 21, 2015 (UTC) ::On second thought he probably be a more hands on "Policy Advisers" similar to The Hammer. "Political Bosses" as such is fine as another sub-category. ML4E (talk) 20:46, June 21, 2015 (UTC) :::Yeah, they're not really fixers. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they get involved in politics for purposes of self-interest first and foremost. An urban political machine filled all the jobs in local government and often had influence with private sector hiring as well, and could steer government contracts however they chose. Their endorsement of a candidate was invaluable, so you had a situation where both civil servants and elected officials were deeply indebted to the machine, and anyone wanting to do business in the city knew it. As you'd imagine, the bosses accumulated tremendous wealth and power. Some, like Daley, chose to convert that power into political office for themselves, others, like Tweed, preferred to remain in the shadows. Either way, everyone danced to their tune. :::The best of them, however, did provide good government. Frank Hague was a famous political boss from my home state who was mayor of Jersey City for thirty years straight before going into retirement. Shortly after he left the Garden State, there was some sort of major screw-up with the public works department of that city (I forget the details) as a result of a budget cut that the new mayor had caused by some sort of budgetary jiggery-pokery designed to give him something to brag about as he headed into a tight election. When the press asked Hague to comment, he said "The problem is, he's trying to accomplish in four years what I did in thirty!" :::The best were also very generous and poured a lot of their machines' resources into holding off urban blight. For instance, at the beginning of the winter, they might send trucks into a poor neighborhood to fill up everyone's coal cellars free of charge, to thank the good people of the city for their support of the party. If, however, you were known to have voted against the machine's slate of endorsed candidates (and they were definitely watching very closely on Election Day), this bounty would pass you by. So they were literally buying votes. That's the reason that the Progressives were so passionate about passing legislation for the creation of secret ballots, and why that legislation, which is still on the books today, is so strict. :::And of course, if you and everyone you knew voted against an endorsed candidate, it wouldn't matter anyway, because the poll clerks and election commissioners were as much in thrall to the bosses as anyone else. :::If you worked for the city in a low-level, apolitical job--a beat cop, or even a trash collector--you could be sure of good, fair employment conditions--none of this defunded pension crap, et cetera. All you had to do was pay a small kickback to the party's war chest out of each paycheck (in Jersey City, 3%) and of course avoid doing things that would get you fired under any circumstances, like showing up drunk or something. :::A whole array of changing socio-political-economic conditions, as well as aggressive prosecution, has driven these machines out of many cities and badly weakened the ones that have managed to hang on elsewhere. Those that have survived are far from "the best of them," and are interested in neither good government nor combating urban blight. Some machine figures still exert considerable influence, however; Obama's first two White House Chiefs of Staff come to mind. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:13, June 22, 2015 (UTC) ::::Thanks for the info. I had heard the term but wasn't very clear on what exactly it involved. Funnily enough, I had thought of Rahm Emanuel in his role as Chief of Staff as Obama's fixer along with Carl Rove for Bush. But those obviously aren't "Political Bosses" roles. ML4E (talk) 21:00, June 22, 2015 (UTC) :::::Emanuel did cut his teeth in Chicago's machine politics (Chicago having arguably the strongest surviving machine). He is by no means a boss himself, and from the perspective of an outsider who's never been anywhere near Chicago, I don't believe he's in any way owned by the bosses either, but he learned political lessons in that environment and made certain contacts, and he continues to find both useful. It's been suggested that Obama, who in 2009 had a pretty sterling public perception to maintain, needed someone close to him who could quietly play games of realpolitik, and Emanuel's experience dabbling in machine politics made him very attractive for that role. But it's not related to the White House Chief of Staff's duties, nor to the unofficial fixer responsibilities that recent presidents have laid on such people. (Actually, I don't think we can limit that to recent presidents, as I think back on people like the elder Francis Prescott Blair, or the role Van Buren played during Jackson's first term. Such people have always been useful.) Turtle Fan (talk) 02:49, June 23, 2015 (UTC) :::::One other note about urban machines is, they actually have had roles to play in moving the US toward a more tolerant and inclusive society. For instance, in the mid- to late-nineteenth century, they were often the only organizations willing to put Irish immigrants and the children thereof in positions of responsibility. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:52, June 23, 2015 (UTC) :But yeah, "Policy Advisers" is fine for the Pain Trust. It's a bit ambiguous, but we can always clear that up in the description. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:32, June 19, 2015 (UTC) ::This is fine. ML4E (talk) 18:28, June 21, 2015 (UTC) 3) Party workers whether paid or not. This would be the Brucks, Trescas and Quinns who are paid and volunteers both low level canvassers, mid-level like Briggs and Bauer and higher level ones like Princess Abigail. :"Political Campaign Workers"? Turtle Fan (talk) 21:32, June 19, 2015 (UTC) ::This one is a little iffy since they do organizing work not directly related to a particular campaign. How about "Political Party Workers"? ML4E (talk) 18:28, June 21, 2015 (UTC) :::Hmm, yes, I think that works. I do think the princess is an outlier here, as just about anything we come up with won't cover the job description of a national committee member. If only we had two more committee members and could cordon them off in a separate category. . . . Turtle Fan (talk) 03:13, June 22, 2015 (UTC) 4) Appointees who work at government such as the Assistant Secretaries. These would be in the space between the low and mid level professionals and the Cabinet Officers. :What about, broadly, "Government Ministers." Appointed officials in the US executive branch don't use the term minister, but I do think it will be implicitly understood that they fill the same function. Turtle Fan (talk) 21:32, June 19, 2015 (UTC) ::No, in a parliamentary system that would be a cabinet level position. How about a modified version of your earlier suggestion "Government Executive Officials"? ML4E (talk) 18:28, June 21, 2015 (UTC) :::There aren't any ministers in sub-cabinet positions? Hunh, I'm surprised, I thought there were. ::::There are some, called "Secretary of State for ..." in the Canadian system. Off hand I can think of the current Sec. of State for Veteran Affairs who is subordinate to the Minister of Defense and doesn't normally sit in cabinet meetings. However, we don't have anything quite like Assistant Sec. of Defense like in the U.S. system. There are lower level political appointments on government payroll who formulate policy, regulations and enabling legislation based on the mandate of the government of the day. I don't know titles off hand but they would be classified as Executives (EX) for salary purposes. :::::It sounds like the job responsibilities of the latter group are closer to Assistant Secretaries et al in the US. Turtle Fan (talk) 02:49, June 23, 2015 (UTC) :::::True enough. I mentioned it because the similarities struck me. Also, you may hear of Deputy Ministers and Assistant DMs but those refer to the career civil servants who are, at least nominally, non-partisan. The DM heads the particular ministry and is responsible for day-to-day operations while the ADMs are equivalent to corporate VPs. ML4E (talk) 17:40, June 23, 2015 (UTC) :::Government Executive Officials works, though. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:13, June 22, 2015 (UTC) Have I covered everything and do you have suggested names? ML4E (talk) 19:34, June 19, 2015 (UTC)